An objective review of all the flagship headphones

Thank you very much.

Well, now I know I need a headphone upgrade sooner rather than later! But isn't that always the result of reading this kind of stuff? And, although listed, mine doesn't claim to be flagship anyway, or cost anything like it. And I like its sound!

But yes, the upgrade is planned. Or, at least, dreamed about. :lol:

(I see there's a head-fi thread: I'll read it tomorrow)
 
Last edited:
Some of the assumptions in that pdf make no sense - it seems like this review is done by an engineer who seems to think that flat FR is the holy grail of audio. God save us from misguided muppets like that!
 
who seems to think that flat FR is the holy grail of audio.

It is, isn't it? Unless you want or need otherwise. Such measurements do matter, especially if a person is seeking high fidelity, or transparent music reproduction. But is it the only buying criterion? Probably not.

Unusually, I don't have my usual hours to spend on the net. By the time I can give any of this proper attention, the thread will have died away.
 
If Sean Olive has something to do with it, experience suggests it's worth hearing about.

But, after a looong day, my brain couldn't manage more than "Wow" at the pics on p.2 :)

Maybe tomorrow....
 
It is, isn't it? Unless you want or need otherwise. Such measurements do matter, especially if a person is seeking high fidelity, or transparent music reproduction. But is it the only buying criterion? Probably not.

If you go by first principles, the end-game of a hi-fi audio system should be to reproduce the sound of a live unamplified concert* as realistically as possible - not to reproduce the data on a CD as linearly as possible.

[*Why live, unamplified concert? Because it provides a reference point. Amplified/electronic music has no such reference. What is accurate when it comes to an amplified guitar or a techno beat? Sure, personal preference plays a big role in deciding what sound signature someone prefers, but there has to be some reference that can be used as a starting point]

The latter does not automatically imply the former. My experience with great-measuring solid state rigs vs poorly-measuring tube amp rigs supports this - and it isnt just me. I had quite a lot of friends listen to music from the tube rig and compare it to the solid state rig, and every single one of them preferred the sound of the tubes - that is what convinced me to get over my own engineer-quant OCD and break with common wisdom.

Now, even assuming that a flat frequency response with speakers is the preferred goal, then it logically and obviously cannot be the preferred goal with headphones, simply b/c perceived response of the headphones is going to be VERY different due to its location and lack of room acoustics and distance-related frequency fall-off. Or if flat FR is the goal for headphones, it cannot be true for speakers. That alone invalidates that post's premise.

However, I feel a flat FR isnt the preferred goal in either case. Why? Well, a few things come to mind:

1/ The recording system does not do a perfect job of capturing everything - especially when one takes into account the position of the mikes vs the position of the typical member of the audience

2/ Reproducing an orchestra in a small living room creates its own imbalances due to sound reflections - for sure, the live sound is a lot more warm/has rolled off treble compared to a flat frequency response

3/ The feedback of solid state amps spoils the timbre and fine details of a linear, zero-feedback tube design

4/ In the case of headphones, some of the dips and valleys in the FR is to compensate for the loss of room acoustics and distance-related drop-off. A flat FR would be unbearably bright and harsh.

Furthermore, in that review's case, there is also no evidence to suggest that the arbitrary measures that the author is using to make his evaluations actually correlate to *perceived* sound quality.

Yes, I did say "perceived" sound quality, b/c ultimately, how we like our music is a very personal decision. You can argue that this makes evaluation a matter of subjective preference - My Fi, as opposed to Hi Fi, and that is makes it impossible to measure/evaluate gear.

My response is - that is true and so what?

The ultimate objective of music is to enjoy it, not to appreciate how good the numbers are. The fact that a subjective measure makes it difficult doesnt mean we should simply use a different method just b/c that is easier - if i lose my keys in the garden in the dark, I wont look for them indoors in the light just b/c it is easier, will I?

And as a matter of fact, most high-end audio rigs do come close to using the unamplified sound as a reference, with minor changes to account for various listening tastes/preferences, so the distribution is fairly tightly centered around that goal, albeit with various subjective interpretations on how to best achieve that goal. And that is just fine, even though it cannot be measured and quantified.

Objective measurements only make sense if they correlate to perception - and definitely should not be the target purely in the interest of convenience and consistency.
 
But, if you are to talk of reference points, you must have the reference point!

I used to work in the business of publishing pictures. Even for a birthday card (rather than an expensive fine-art print) we tried to get the picture as true to the original as we could. This meant various proofs and comparisons at various stages of production, ultimately checking the results on the press at production.

Early in the process, we would have the original painting. If not (it would be hard to borrow a big old master from a national gallery!) we would have a photograph that was accepted as being accurate, and that is what we would use in the making and proofing of the films from which, ever after, printing plates would be made.

It is amazing how many people, even in that trade, would pick up a printed copy, and say, "This is not a good reproduction," even though they are not, at the same time, looking at the original, an accurate photograph of it, or even a passed proof. That, except in extreme cases (and any fool can tell if, for instance, one of the four colours has gone completely missing), is an impossible thing to say. But they would say it. And if they happened to be senior management, then that situation had to be handled.

So, whether it is picture, or sound, we can only compare to a reference if we have the reference. Otherwise we are only comparing to an idea of the reference.

Due to other stuff (like listening to live music :) ) I have not given this thread, or the links in it, anything like the attention it deserves. I hope to catch up some time, and, until then... apologies if I'm missing the point!
 
Ah, but there is a reference point - the sound of live music, with some variation around in to account for various listening tastes.

Let me use the photography analogy you refer to. What you are talking about is product photography, where accurate color mapping is important. However, a more apt comparison to music would be photography as an art form (nature, street, wildlife). There, no one claims that a perfectly-accurate color reproduction is the goal. The top photographers - right from the days of Ansel Adams - do adjust the contrast, tonality, saturation, etc. to meet their interpretation of the subject. But obviously, they do so with reality as a basis and within reason - no one is going to believe a bright green sun, for example (atleast in the context of photography, as opposed to digital art).

No one looks at a photo and goes "hmm, this looks great, but it isnt color-matched to the real scene, so it sucks".

Yet when it comes to music - another subjective form of art appreciation - suddenly a flat FR is the end-goal, without any cognizance to whether it actually *sounds* better or not.

I find that a big logic fail. If someone prefers a flat FR, that's fine - but it is fine b/c they prefer it. It is not fine merely b/c it is a flat FR. Quite simply - many, many people *prefer* the higher-distortion sound of tubes, or the rolled-off highs of an LCD2 or Vandersteens. So suddenly, measurements is supposed to trump preference?

I also find it a proven logic fail to expect speakers and headphones to have the same target frequency response (as per my point above). Even if you disagree with my position re subjectiveness, you have to grant this point. That alone nullifies the entire position by that author.

Now, i do look at numbers as well - S/N ratio and dynamic range are 2 big things I look for, b/c I like a dark, black background for music and also muscular impact on the crescendos. But in this case, it is a case of looking for numbers which match my audio preferences, not slavishly following lower THD uber alles. And I do find some of the claims made in the name of "subjective listening" to be absolutely ridiculous - cables, the hugely-overblown descriptions about the differences between amps and DACs, etc. Good engineering and design is an important part of making a good product (hey, I am an engineer after all) - but voicing it isnt simply a measure of getting the flattest FR possible, IMO.
 
Was actually talking about printing, where the mass production of a picture would be analagous to the issue of a recording, but most of all about the principle of even talking about a "reference."

but there is a reference point - the sound of live music

What's that? There is no sound of live music. There is only the sound of each and every performance. Then, assuming that the recording is good, the idea, for past couple of generations, since this interest of ours got started, is hifi. High Fidelity.

We cannot control the recording (except by not buying it). We can try to have equipment which plays it back as accurately as possible.

That is not compulsory. Nobody is forcing accurate music down our throats (err... Ears!) and we have a choice to go bright, warm, bassy, entirely according to our taste and the kind of music we want to listen to. We can even have (shock, horror)... tone controls! And, given imperfect rooms and imperfect ears, I have never understood why they got dismissed from high-end kit.

It is all a free choice.

Oddly, the speaker makers seem to think that flat-looking response graphs (doctored or not!) help to sell speakers.

Back to the headphone thing....

I have not understood. Is the response curve that has been measured in the tests, and termed as "flat=desirable," (rightly or wrongly), the actual response of the headphone, or the perceived response? Because it's different for headphones than speakers? Flat, for headphones doesn't sound flat? That was my previous [mis]understanding anyway.
 
If Sean Olive has something to do with it, experience suggests it's worth hearing about.
His research at Harman, as always, has to do with listener preference, rather than trying to be accurate to some reference (whatever that might mean). It's been argued that preference varies from person to person. But if you test what 100 listeners prefer, the results won't be statistically random. A pattern will emerge, which is how you end up with Top-40 music lists. There's no guarantee that you will like those songs, but it does give you an idea of what people in general prefer.

These blind tests of statistical preference are how Harman decides what their speakers should sound like or what the target curve for their room correction should be. That's what Olive did with headphones: rather than accept industry curves, he tested for subjective preference and followed up with objective measurements to find out why certain headphones are preferred and others are not.
 
I agree. Live music can never be a reference point because live music sounds drastically different in different venues. I had posted a video of how different a drum sounds in different locations. Plus, for it to be a meaningful reference, we need to have heard it ourselves.

At best, a studio master recording can be considered a reference point. There should also be no reason why only unamplified acoustic or vocal music should only be considered. What should matter is what the artist and producer intended.
 
I thought I'd take a holiday from this kind of discussion, because getting up before 9.00am, and disturbing my biological clock seems to destroy both my ability to think clearly and my sense of humour! :eek: (It doesn't destroy my ability to listen to music, thank goodness --- which is the reason I am currently keeping these weird-to-me hours).

However, I had one more thought on this before going to sleep last night, which is that sounds like live music is not only fine as a subjective reaction, but it is what most of us probably seek. Unamplified, etc, is a bit of a distraction: if we can close our eyes and feel that we are in a rock concert, that is good as feeling that we are listening to a piano recital. Personally, I would choose the latter as the better way of evaluating or showing off a hifi system, but that's a different matter.

Orchestral or solo classical music is usually better recorded; it has unbelievable dynamic range; an orchestra presents a challenge in sound stage/image that no small group could --- just by strength of numbers.

Now, if we can listen to that stuff, and subjectively feel that, against all logical odds, we are actually hearing an orchestra, it's really a bit of a miracle --- and plenty good enough for me.

The question may then arise: what measurable conditions best give rise to that experience. It may arise, it may not: we don't buy by looking at a set of specs and ordering the thing. We listen and enjoy.

However, engineers have been dealing with this stuff for most of the past 100 years. Sure, they too go beyond numbers: if they did not test their products on their own ears, and then the ears of others, then there would hardly be any point.

The subjective and the objective go hand in hand. That is the way it always has been. The objective cannot be written out, because then there would be no products to buy.

But, ultimately, it is the results that count, and the result, music listening, is a subjective experience.
 
I agree. Live music can never be a reference point because live music sounds drastically different in different venues.

Sorry, but I disagree. A violin has a certain sound. A piano has a certain sound. Yes, there are variations in those sounds depending on concert hall acoustics but most people who've listened to a lot of concerts are familiar with the degree of variation in perceived sounds, depending on the concert hall and the seating position.

And it is fairly easy to determine if the difference in the sound of, say, a string bass is because of the hall acoustics or inaccurate tonal reproduction. Especially when the evaluation of the gear is done over several albums, not just one or two.

So reproducing the tone & timbre of those instruments in a realistic manner is indeed the goal, IMO. Sure, I agree that if someone doesnt have a lot of concert experience, then they may not be able to use this external reference - but so what? That doesnt change the situation.

Again, i caution against the trap of ignoring an approach simply b/c it is hard to quantify.
 
However, I had one more thought on this before going to sleep last night, which is that sounds like live music is not only fine as a subjective reaction, but it is what most of us probably seek. Unamplified, etc, is a bit of a distraction: if we can close our eyes and feel that we are in a rock concert, that is good as feeling that we are listening to a piano recital. Personally, I would choose the latter as the better way of evaluating or showing off a hifi system, but that's a different matter.

Orchestral or solo classical music is usually better recorded; it has unbelievable dynamic range; an orchestra presents a challenge in sound stage/image that no small group could --- just by strength of numbers.

Now, if we can listen to that stuff, and subjectively feel that, against all logical odds, we are actually hearing an orchestra, it's really a bit of a miracle --- and plenty good enough for me.

The question may then arise: what measurable conditions best give rise to that experience. It may arise, it may not: we don't buy by looking at a set of specs and ordering the thing. We listen and enjoy.

Good question. The Pass Labs site has some research showing that the presence of 2nd-order distortion (as found in tube amps) is one of the things that a lot of people prefer - although a significant portion prefer 3rd-order distortion as well

However, engineers have been dealing with this stuff for most of the past 100 years. Sure, they too go beyond numbers: if they did not test their products on their own ears, and then the ears of others, then there would hardly be any point.

Question is, do they really test it on their ears? Or do most of them fall into the same specification-based design trap? I reckon the high-end speaker and headphone guys do. But at the mass-market level?

SDurani points to the Harman labs - that's a step in the right direction. Question is, how qualified are the listeners to judge what is hi-fi? When I am listening to trance/house, I prefer a sound that is as far from hifi as possible - deep, boomy bass and somewhat sparkling highs. A lot of casual listeners prefer that as well (see the popularity of Beats headphones). So does that really qualify someone to evaluate whether or not a speaker/headphone does a good job of realistic reproduction (as opposed to preferable reproduction - which is a perfectly valid design goal as well).

The subjective and the objective go hand in hand. That is the way it always has been. The objective cannot be written out, because then there would be no products to buy.

But, ultimately, it is the results that count, and the result, music listening, is a subjective experience.

No disagreements here. My issue is when people blindly take an arbitrary set of objective numbers and make them out to be the target, without first correlating them to perceived quality.

This article set me off, b/c the author just randomly sets up a bunch of criteria to define quality, without making any arguments as to why those criteria are relevant (some of them are obviously not).
 
Sure. That is absolutely true. I guess that it is just a particular let's look at this way exercise. I doubt that anyone would make a buying decision on that information, but they might well feed it in. It may be valid: it is limited.

Sorry, but I disagree. A violin has a certain sound. A piano has a certain sound.
Well, true ... but even a clock radio makes them recognisable. Beyond that there are of course many levels. A cough is recognisable. I have heard a certain cough on a live recording numerous times, but ...on a fellow form member's superb system, I looked round to see who was coughing in the room!
SDurani points to the Harman labs - that's a step in the right direction. Question is, how qualified are the listeners to judge what is hi-fi?

My guess? Superbly! Including Dr Olive. Harmon must cover just about every corner of hifi and not-so-hi fi. I'm sure their marketing and engineering people work together to produce voiced equipment which will sell at varied prices to a wide range of buyers.

IIRC, Dr Olive actually has a marketing title --- but the first writing of his that I was aware of was the test in which he showed that people can be more influenced by appearance, price, brand-name badge, etc, than by actual sound. And he was testing his colleagues too. It's great work, because if the industry comes to understand that certain kinds of testing and appraisal are necessary, then we will end up with better products.

This has gone way off-topic from the headphone test! I suggest that we just take it for what it is. No-one is throwing away other tests and reviews. I'll certainly try to take it in better, when I have time. January, probably, but anyway before I go buying!
 
Wharfedale Linton Heritage Speakers in Walnut finish at a Special Offer Price. BUY now before the price increase.
Back
Top